While, Peter and Zara have spend their whole lives knowing that they are on edge of royalty and all the duty that it comes with, But they have been allowed the freedom to do their own thing with little public intervention.
Beatrice and Eugenie have been brought up been told you are princesses this is your job and these are your future roles. This is the duty you owe your country. Now suddenly over night they have their roles reversed.
Peter Philips is now Prince Peter, 4th in line to the throne and he has to give up his work and living in Hong Kong to go cut ribbons in the UK. Zara will have to give up showjumping. Of course I am exaggerating here but it is just a example.
While Beatrice and Eugenie will have to say good bye to the peaks and titles and actually work.

Beatrice and Eugenie have been brought up been told you are princesses this is your job and these are your future roles. This is the duty you owe your country. Now suddenly over night they have their roles reversed.

The Private Members Bill being proposed apparently states - any daughter of Prince William would be able to succeed her father as Queen on the basis of age. Nothing about stripping anyone of any title or style.
The article on the other hand states -

Quote:

If the Bill is passed into law, it would also mean that Princess Anne would become fourth in line to the throne behind Prince William and Prince Harry, rather than behind Prince Andrew and Prince Edward

Which is clearly inaccurate, as any child of Williams would push Anne to 5th, a second child to 6th.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

Well, it is discriminating. That is a fact. What people differ on is whether such discrimination is wrong. I think succession to the Crown should change. I do not think succession to peerages should change (although if it happened, I wouldn't stand in the way of it), as for nearly all hereditary peers, they gain little or no formal power from their office.

Even now, many have called for a change to the peerage system. It is total discrimination that the eldest daughter(s) are forced to make way to a, sometimes, much younger brother. That they are not deemed 'good enough' to carry on the family name or estates, based on an archaic law. If they change the law of succession, then I too believe it will raise the spectre of changes to succession in the peerage.

And no, there are no legal benefits in a peerage, but lots and lots of perks!

For all intents and purposes, Beatrice and Eugenie are also "on edge of royalty". As the Wales boys take on public roles and their spouses take on public roles, there will be a very limited role for B&E, and if they are sensible, they will be aware of that, irrespective of what their parents have to say - so IMO, they would be well advsed to build lives independent of the royal family, just like the Phillips children. Similarly, even in the hypothetical situaion being talked about, the lives of the Phillips children will not change.

David Cameron has dropped plans to reform the monarchy which might have allowed a Roman Catholic to become king.
The proposals, which could also prevent men taking precedence over women in line of succession, had been raised by Gordon Brown last year and talks began with leaders of 15 Commonwealth countries whose approval would be required.
But yesterday, Nick Clegg signalled that the talks have ended and the Coalition has no interest in taking the idea further.

Originally Posted by Kotroman;883518The fact that women enjoy their husband's title while men don't enjoy their wife's title is also discriminating against men, yet nobody cares about that (and shouldn't care about that). Imagine the Duke of Edinburgh as King Philip and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Laurence&redirect=no"

Timothy Laurence[/URL] as "The Prince Timothy" . Or would it be "The Prince Anne", since The Prince Charles's wife is The Princess Charles? I find the current "discriminations" against women (whose place in the line of succession is behind all their brothers) and "discriminations" against men (who don't enjoy their wife's title) quite balanced.

First off.. thanks to all of you posting here for giving me the information I'd need to have an opinion in the first place. Wherever I am wrong here... please correct me.

First off when it comes to Queen... you do realize there are two different types of queens right? Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth I were Queen Regnant... meaning reigning queens. QEQM ... the queen mum was a Queen Consort to the King. Should Charles be crowned King... his wife would be Queen Consort. Anyone that has ever handled a deck of cards knows a King beats a Queen.. when you have a regnant Queen... if her husband got the title of King (even with Consort added) it diminishes the title of Queen Regnant.

In history though much has been done for equality without changing the titles. When Victoria married her Albert, it was the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Years later when Philip and Elizabeth married, he gave up his titles and became a British citizen (it was post war times and the House of Windsor was fairly new). HM's father at the time of marriage named Philip as Prince Consort and the Duke of Edinburgh. Actually from some of of the stuff I've been reading.. a duke is a higher rank than a prince.

HM also issued letters patent that those of her descendants that were not HRH would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. She put Philip first on that one :0)

Now.. about changing all of this... I think its a good thing.

#1) Primogeniture law is degrading to women
#2) If you really want to follow bloodlines... its the mitochondrial DNA that carries it. (now if only Henry VIII knew about genetic eh?)
#3) The Roman Catholic church is not the political and power reign it used to be.

I do think that Charles just might change that Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith.. and in my eyes.. that'd make him a wise man.

I do think that Charles just might change that Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith.. and in my eyes.. that'd make him a wise man.

From what I've heard, he's intended that all along: to change the title to 'Defender of Faiths.'

However - the title of "Defender of the Faith" was awarded to Henry VIII by none other than the then-Pope, Leo X. After it was rescinded by the Pope, it was re-issued to Henry by Parliament in 1544. I'm not sure if one can change such a title without losing it altogether.

By extended example, I am an alumni of the College of William & Mary in Virginia. William and Mary has long been actually a university, not a college. However, to change its name to "The University of William & Mary" would cause the Royal charter to end. So, we keep the (incorrect) title to preserve the charter.

Charles could call himself anything he wished, of course, but I imagine that he would lose the actual title were he to alter it. I should think it would require an act of Parliament for the change to be effective.

One would hope, however, that Charles' intent on the title change would to be more inclusive of all of the faiths that are now part of the British landscape, including Roman Catholicism. It sounds to me, though, that the reactionary forces wish to keep the women of the Royal house in a secondary position, and the Catholics in no position (of succession) at all.

__________________"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"

I'm not sure that Charles can change the royal titles. Though they were enacted by proclamation, they were first authorized by an Act of Parliament. The fact that they were merely authorized by Parliament rather than enacted by Parliament might give an out, but the convention seems to be that changes need to be done first by Parliament.

After the last go-round on this attempt to change the succession laws, I began to consider what I would say if I ever met HM Queen Elizabeth II. My usual respectful, dignified self would probably do the obligatory "How do you do?" and move along quietly.

However, the mischievous part of my self which had me choose the name Rascal would probably ask HM "How does it feel to perpetuate an institution that supports religious and gender discrimination?"

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get a response...LOL. But if HM was actually interested in having an actual discussion about this, I believe that someone who has seen, heard, and experienced all that she has probably realizes that these conditions in the act of succession are wrong but despite being an intelligent woman, she and all her advisors haven't figured out how to do it.

IMO the greatest probability would be that the response would include the oft-quoted excuses of "900 years of tradition" and "it would have to be approved not only by Parliament but also all of the Commonwealth nations as well". So I would choose to address those.

1. The "900 years of tradition" is very important...in terms of ceremony and historical relevance. But I would guess that less than 50% of the "traditions" that existed in life for monarchs and subjects 900 years ago still exist today. In addition, the next Queen of Great Britain would not even be accepted at court for the same reasons that HM's father became king...the wife of the king cannot be a divorced woman. But HM saw fit to overlook/discard/change that tradition rather than requiring her son to renounce his rights to the throne in favor of Prince William.

2. "all of the Commonwealth nations" would have to approve it as well is just a wordy way of saying, "We're lazy". The issue is significant. Two very large groups of people...women and Roman Catholics...are being discriminated against and made into secondary citizens. This is very similar to slavery, something the British have supposedly been against for years (unless you count India). Ending slavery in the United States took years, countless deaths, a divided country, a civil war, led to the assassination of a president....but it was the right thing to do so despite all of that it was worth doing. Debating and signing papers seems a lot less than what it took to end slavery. Or maybe equality for sons and daughters and dynasts who marry Catholics aren't that important.

First off.. thanks to all of you posting here for giving me the information I'd need to have an opinion in the first place. Wherever I am wrong here... please correct me.

In history though much has been done for equality without changing the titles. When Victoria married her Albert, it was the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Years later when Philip and Elizabeth married, he gave up his titles and became a British citizen (it was post war times and the House of Windsor was fairly new). HM's father at the time of marriage named Philip as Prince Consort and the Duke of Edinburgh. Actually from some of of the stuff I've been reading.. a duke is a higher rank than a prince.

George VI never made Philip Prince Consort. He actually didn't make him a Prince at all. George VI created Philip HRH Duke of Edinburgh etc but it wasn't until 1957 that the Queen created Philip a Prince of the UK (he had given up the title Prince when he became a British citizen - although later it was discovered that he had been one all along under the Sophia Naturalization Act). Philip has never had the title Prince Consort. Britain has only ever had one person with that title and that was Albert.

Charles said he would like to have the title 'Defender of Faith' singular not plural.
To do so would involve disestablishing the Church of England.

The issue is significant. Two very large groups of people...women and Roman Catholics...are being discriminated against and made into secondary citizens. This is very similar to slavery, something the British have supposedly been against for years (unless you count India). Ending slavery in the United States took years, countless deaths, a divided country, a civil war, led to the assassination of a president....but it was the right thing to do so despite all of that it was worth doing. Debating and signing papers seems a lot less than what it took to end slavery. Or maybe equality for sons and daughters and dynasts who marry Catholics aren't that important.

Wow...whatever one thinks of semi-salic law, it's NOT "very similiar" to slavery. Slavery involves capturing Africans, packing them like sardines onto slave ships in conditions so horrible that a significant number will die before they reach the Americas, selling them on an auction block, splitting up families, subjecting them to horrific beatings if they don't perform perfectly, raping female slaves (the number of slave children fathered by white masters is astonishing), and legally considering them property rather than human beings.

The British monarchy's current system removes a very tiny number of people from the line of succession if they marry Catholics, for historical reasons. These people are generally very wealthy and live very well, and continue to do so after they lose their rights to the throne. It also places daughters behind sons in the line to the throne - it doesn't take their right away, it just puts them further back in the line. They continue to live a life of incredible privilege. And most of them, I would say, are quite pleased not to be first in line. How many minor royals have we heard say they're so glad they're not the heir, they don't envy the Crown Prince(ss) one bit, they're so much happier leading a life that's not constantly under scrutiny, and so on.

This is NOTHING like slavery. Saying the two things are "very similar" because they both involve a certain amount of discrimination is like saying I'm very similar to an octupus when I'm in the shower because we're both in the water. Um, sorry. No similarities in either situation.

This is NOTHING like slavery. Saying the two things are "very similar" because they both involve a certain amount of discrimination is like saying I'm very similar to an octupus when I'm in the shower because we're both in the water. Um, sorry. No similarities in either situation.

Point taken, Maura. I agree I was being more than a bit over-dramatic in the comparison. But I would also respond that slavery is MUCH more than the history of African people kidnapped and brought to the United States and all that that entailed. Slavery has a much broader and longer history than just that and has existed in every culture since time began. Slavery in the broader sense, and of which I spoke when I initially posted, involves the subjugation of a group - any group - of people.

Absolutely I agree with you in the context of African slaves and semi-Salic law being an unequal comparison. But it still doesn't address the fact that any woman born into a royal family that follows semi-Salic succession, even though qualified, ambitious and chronologically eldest is PUSHED BACK (this being the key part) in the line of succession behind younger brothers, purely because of her genitalia. In addition, the religious components of the British succession do not just apply to a few people who marry a Catholic. It applies to anyone in the line of succession who chooses to marry a Catholic, many of whom do not live a life a privelege equal to those closest to the throne (and, obviously, to whom it doesn't matter anyway). It also applies to anyone who, for whatever reasons, chooses to express their faith in the religion of the Roman Catholic church (This has actually happened with two members of the Kent family). The British component does not make a stipulation for faith...only for the expression of it in the Roman Catholic church. It discriminates based on religious expression and, as such, is a violation of human rights. There are many reasons why this issue hasn't been tried in courts - indifference (we just don't care), political (a lawsuit about religious expression between Great Britain and the Vatican is modern-day legal warfare), and many others.

Like it or not, I don't believe it will change. But I do believe it should. Any thoughts on the issue itself, and not just my over-reaching comparisons?

Yes, I agree the history of slavery goes much further back than just African slavery – I just used that as my example because it’s the system we’re all most familiar with. I would also argue it was one of the “worst” systems of slavery as far as the slaves’ legal position goes, especially in contrast to, say, ancient Roman slavery, where it was quite possible to buy and sell yourself in and out and move in and out of being a slave. But a hard comparison because of course all slavery is horrible.

I don’t know that I would agree that the semi-salic system won’t change in Britain…obviously it’s not happening any time next week now that they’ve shoved the proposal off the table, but I would not be surprised to see it happen in my lifetime, just because so many other European monarchies have adopted equal primogeniture.

Anyway…you asked my thoughts on the issues.

As far as the Catholic thing goes, I don’t really have strong feelings one way or the other. I don’t think it’s a major issue, just because I don’t think it seriously injures anyone. Yes, they don’t all lead lives of incredible privilege once you go far down the line of succession, but my point was mostly that the super-wealthy at the top don’t lose anything in standard of living if they marry a Catholic, and those relatively normal people further down haven’t really lost anything either (and they were too far back to have ever had a shot at the throne anyway). And I don’t have the impression that the rule is horribly offensive to British Catholics either – it doesn’t keep them from doing anything, other than marrying William, and I think Kate Middleton pretty much has that locked up. I’m not Catholic or British, but I think if I were British and my own religious tradition (Baptist) were barred from the throne, I don’t think I would really care. I would be much more irritated about my tax money going to support a church I don’t personally support, but I would have the same issue in Norway or Sweden or any other country with a state church. I don’t like the idea of a state church, but this particular rule doesn’t bother me.

However, it’s true that there are really no good reasons today to bar Catholics, or the spouses of Catholics, from the throne. This might have made more sense 50 or 100 years ago, when the majority of Britons attended church, and generally the Anglican church, because I can see an argument that the monarch should represent the views of the majority of his or her people. But so few Britons today are religious that I don’t think it would much matter whether the King or Queen was Catholic or not.

Yet I personally would prefer to keep the rule, just because it’s grounded in significant history. It was of course created because the Catholic/Protestant wars of the 16th century created a major struggle over the throne after a monarch’s death – for instance, Lady Jane Grey vs. Princess Mary after King Edward’s death. This was a time when people didn’t hesitate to kill over religious beliefs, so it mattered very much whether the monarch were Catholic or Protestant, and it was in the interest of state stability to keep Catholics from the throne. All of this was a significant time in English history, and as a history lover I’m all for keeping historical traditions if they’re not hurting anybody, and I don’t believe this one is. However, it’s not a big deal to me either way.

As far as semi-salic succession goes, I have stronger feelings there, and I have to say I’m very much in favor of it. I don't think women should be kept from the throne - that's unnecessary and impractical (with smaller families today it’s quite possible to have no sons, as the Dutch and Spanish heirs do, plus we’ve seen so many instances of historical chaos because there were no male heirs when there were plenty of women available). We currently have some great woman monarchs, Margrethe II, Elizabeth II, and Beatrix, plus we’ve seen women monarchs do well in history (Victoria, Elizabeth I, etc.) However, I do think the law should place males ahead of females in the line – not because I hate women or want to discriminate against them, but because I think there are reasons it's better, in general, to have a King.

First, I think there's a role for both a King and a Queen. Yes, there's usually a Prince Consort, and yes, Phillip, Henrik, and Claus have all done good jobs in their role, but I think you get "more for your money," so to speak, when you have two monarchs rather than one monarch plus a prince. (And I don’t like the idea of titling a Queen Regnant’s husband King Consort – the historical tradition for the King ruling over the Queen is too strong and I don’t think people would accept it. I somehow think the Danes would have a fit over a King Henrik! )

Second, I think Prince Consort is a difficult role for a man - it's hard to spend your life walking three steps behind your wife. I think it's difficult for a man personally and difficult for the marriage. (Maybe one could argue it shouldn't be this way, but it generally is in our society.)

Third, if a woman comes to the throne as Queen Regnant once her children are grown, then this next issue doesn't matter. However, if she has small children at the time - like Margrethe and Elizabeth - then it's difficult for her to fulfill her duties and spend enough time with them, as was the case for both these women. A King who is a young father doesn't have quite the same problem because his Queen Consort wife has more time for them and because fathers aren't expected to see quite as much of their kids as mothers are. (Once again, maybe one could argue it shouldn't be this way, but it generally is in our society.)

Even if there weren’t advantages to a King over a Queen, I don’t find the fact that there’s discrimination against daughters in the monarchy exceptionally troubling. Monarchies inherently discriminate – if you’re not born into one, you’re obviously not royal and you’re denied the privileges that involves. And even with equal primogeniture, there’s discrimination within the monarchy itself – why should younger children be further back in the line? Is it fair for Andrew to rank behind Charles, or Joachim to rank behind Frederik, just because they’re younger? Why is there no outcry about the denial of rights to middle and younger children?
The popular argument that it isn't fair to deny a girl the right to the throne because she has a younger brother seems to presuppose that the throne is a wonderful thing everyone is just clamoring to have. On the contrary, you tend to see royals reacting the opposite way. For instance, the two younger Swedish siblings say they're glad Victoria's the heir and not them, Margriet of the Netherlands says she can't imagine anything worse than being Queen like Beatrix, and I've read that when Elizabeth was a young girl after it became apparent her father would have to take the throne she used to pray for God to send her a brother. The throne is a lot of work, a lot of responsibility, and generally pretty restricting for your life, your spouse's life, and your children's lives, which is why most royals would prefer to avoid it and just enjoy royal privilege from further out on the fringe. I think the fact that the British system currently keeps women from being in this situation unless they have no brothers is actually a show of great preference to females, and I think making the succession laws gender-blind would be a loss to a royal women's rights rather than a gain.

Hi again, Maura724. Thanks for the response. I really appreciate the discussion. Like yourself, I personally don't really care much about this matter, but unlike you, I don't necessarily see it changing for many years, even if Charles and/or William ascend the throne and are in favor of such a change. If I happen to live longer than both of their reigns, I'll be quite surprised!

I am also a history lover and perhaps am not as great a student of it as you. I thought the split with the Catholic church was precipitated by Henry VIII wanting to divorce one of his wives, an action "condemned" by the Pope at the time. It was this "condemnation" or refusal to accept/recognize the divorce that caused H8 to declare himself head of the Church of England. The subsequent fighting between his daughters and their factions of differing religions was the fallout from H8's decisions and proclamations regarding the Catholic faith, wasn't it?

I think Maura is referring the law adopted much later which takes claimants out of the line of succession if they marry a Catholic or are Catholic. This is of course different than placing females further down the line of succession regardless of their age or birth order.

I thought the split with the Catholic church was precipitated by Henry VIII wanting to divorce one of his wives, an action "condemned" by the Pope at the time. It was this "condemnation" or refusal to accept/recognize the divorce that caused H8 to declare himself head of the Church of England. The subsequent fighting between his daughters and their factions of differing religions was the fallout from H8's decisions and proclamations regarding the Catholic faith, wasn't it?

I like to argue and debate, too, Rascal.

Yes, it's true that the split between the British monarchy (or, more accurately at the time, the English monarchy) began with Henry VIII wanting to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Up until this point, there had been Protestants in England, but the monarch had always been Catholic and that had been the official, state religion. However, the Pope wouldn't grant Henry his divorce, so he basically decided to create his own church, the Church of England, and make himself the Head of it. Henry's supporters among the nobility and the court jumped ship with him, and his future children (Elizabeth and Edward) were raised in the Church of England.

However, just because Henry had created a new church and a lot of people had followed him, there was still a significant Catholic party among the nobility and those well-placed in politics. Some of them were Catherine's supporters, some of them felt it was wrong for Henry to go against the Pope, and some just felt it was the most advantageous position to take for various reasons. Anyway, there were a good number of these people, all of whom would prefer to see a Catholic on the throne again.

And Henry's first child, his only child with Catherine, was the Catholic Mary. Much of the political jockeying to remove Mary and Elizabeth from the line of succession and put them back in and take them out again and on and on as it went for quite awhile was based on the fact that Mary was the best chance for another Catholic monarch.

Once Henry's Protestant son Edward was born, it appeared that this wouldn't be an issue, as Edward would likely be followed by all his Protestant descendants. But then Edward took the throne as a young boy and got sick before he had a chance to marry. His obvious heir ought to have been his oldest sister Mary.

But Edward was very passionate about his Protestant faith and did not want the throne falling into the hands of a Catholic. Nor did any of his Protestant counselors, who stood to lose their positions, and perhaps, under the intolerant regimes of the era, also their heads. (At this point there were no rules about the monarch not being Catholic.) After much wrangling, Edward altered the succession so that he would be succeeded by his Protestant cousin Lady Jane Grey. Jane (who is fascinating; I'm writing my senior thesis on her this year, but she's not terribly relevant to this discussion) took the throne for 9 days, giving her the shortest reign in English history. Mary, however, raised an army and defeated Jane's forces, proclaiming herself Queen in London just over a week after Edward's death. There were two more uprisings in the next two years(?) in favor of Jane, but Mary easily crushed both. She went on the earn herself the nickname Bloody Mary for her persecution of Protestants and entered into a highly unpopular marriage with Phillip of Spain, which, had it produced an heir, would have founded a Catholic dynasty. (A great fear in an increasingly Protestant England.)

Of course, after Mary, the Protestant Elizabeth ascended the throne. Yet the Protestant-Catholic tug-of-war over the English throne continued throughout the next few reigns, simply because there were still quite a few Catholics in the line of succession.

This wasn't solved until the 1680s under the reign of James II, a Catholic who was pursuing a number of anti-Protestant policies. The Protestants were relatively calm about all this, because they saw it as temporary since his immediate successor was his daughter Mary who had been raised Protestant. Then James's (second) wife gave birth to a son, who would be Catholic, and panic ensued.

A group of Protestant nobles then invited the Protestant Prince of Orange, William, who had already wanted to marry James's daughter Mary, to come to England and invade. Many of James's Protestant officers defected and joined William's army and James panicked and fled to France. Parliament then declared William and Mary King and Queen and also issued a Bill of Rights and some new restrictions on the monarchy. (All this, and some other unrelated political events, is the Glorious Revolution of 1689.) The new restrictions included the no Catholics rule.

So yes, it did all start with Henry's separation from the Catholic Church, but it took another century and a half before Catholics, and those with Catholic spouses, were barred from the throne, and it was at many times a bloody, messy 150 years.

So while there's no real reason today that the monarch can't be Catholic, there are solid historical reasons for the law. And since the monarchy is so based in history and tradition, I don't think historical traditions ought to be altered unless there's a very compelling reason for doing so, and I don't think there is one right now.

So yes, it did all start with Henry's separation from the Catholic Church, but it took another century and a half before Catholics, and those with Catholic spouses, were barred from the throne, and it was at many times a bloody, messy 150 years.

Thank you very much, Maura724! I suppose I could have researched this on the internet, but many times I find it difficult to understand the sequence, flow and nuances of the story.

Your narrative made it much clearer for me and for the first time I understand how I was mistaken about Henry VIII creating this. In fact, I was never actually aware that the British Parliament were the originators of these requirements/limitations in the succession.

Thank you very much, indeed. I wish you all the best with your thesis work and because of your brief description of her time and reign, I plan to do more study about Lady Jane Grey.

And yes Lady Jane is absolutely fascinating - she was only 15 when she came to the throne and had very little say in the matter. But she was an incredibly strong-willed girl with extraordinarily firm Protestant beliefs (perhaps the point of fanaticism). She was eventually beheaded for the treason of claiming the throne, and could possibly have saved herself by accepting Catholicism, but there was no way she was ever going to bend on that issue, which I think shows an amazing strength of character for a teenager.

George VI never made Philip Prince Consort. He actually didn't make him a Prince at all. George VI created Philip HRH Duke of Edinburgh etc but it wasn't until 1957 that the Queen created Philip a Prince of the UK (he had given up the title Prince when he became a British citizen - although later it was discovered that he had been one all along under the Sophia Naturalization Act). Philip has never had the title Prince Consort. Britain has only ever had one person with that title and that was Albert.

There see... I knew I'd muck it up somewhere along the line. . Thanks Bertie! This stuff fascinates me and I'm learning a lot!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

From what I've heard, he's intended that all along: to change the title to 'Defender of Faiths.''

You're absolutely correct here. Thanks all too for the information of what it would take for Charles to actually change such a small grouping of words. The fact that he has thought it would have been something appropriate to do in today's globalized world, shows me that this is a man that honors and respects the personal beliefs off all British citizens. With all that would be required to change something that to a lot of us looks like a relatively small thing to do, we're reminded also of just what the British Royalty and all their titles, orders, dukedoms really represent... an ongoing, living, breathing continuity of history. I'm sure a lot of things that worked 900 some years ago really don't fit well in the 21st century, but it also serves as a reminder of centuries of history leading up to the now. I'll remember that the next time I see a royal cutting a ribbon.